I recently took part in a discussion about communism in the Political Philosophy category. During that discussion, when the possibility of building the kind of communism advocated by Karl Marx was being considered, one opinion was expressed repeatedly: that such a system is impossible because of certain features of human nature. However, almost nothing was said about what exactly those features consist of.
I expressed my own view that I may understand what lies at the core of this human nature, and I proposed a certain formula which, in my opinion, explains the motivation behind a significant part of human behavior. After that, discussions arose about egoism, altruism, morality, and personal interest, and for that reason I decided to continue this topic separately in the Ethics category.
The formula itself will be presented later. It is closely connected with the topic of egoism, and I would like to briefly outline my views on this issue.
Only recently did I discover that there are many sources describing egoism and its various forms. However, long before that, while working on my own ideas concerning the regularities behind human motivation, I had to independently formulate and describe different forms of egoism myself — simply because at that time I had neither the Internet nor Google.
In this topic, I examine egoism and altruism from two perspectives.
The first is my personal view of the different forms of egoism and altruism, their interconnection, and certain subtleties in how these concepts are interpreted in philosophical discussions.
The second is an examination of this subject from the point of view of the regularity in human motivation that I had already proposed earlier in the discussion about communism.
To begin with, I suggest analyzing egoism and altruism through the description of the following four situations (which are partially and conditionally illustrated in the accompanying graph).) “The graph is attached below.”
First Situation
A person seeks to satisfy their own personal interests in all situations, regardless of the interests of other people or society.
I call this type of behavior aggressive egoism (the red zone).
Second Situation
A person primarily seeks to satisfy their own interests, but is willing to take the interests of others into account when those interests intersect with their own — within what they themselves consider reasonable limits. Such a person seeks compromises and may sometimes even sacrifice personal interests for humanitarian reasons or to avoid conflict.
I call this type of behavior rational egoism (the yellow zone).
Third Situation
A person cares about their natural personal interests, like all people do, as long as those interests do not conflict with the interests of others or society. However, if such a conflict arises, then in most cases — or almost always — that person sacrifices their own interests for the benefit of others or for the common good.
This quality is usually considered altruism (the green zone).
By its nature, altruism is the opposite of egoism. Nevertheless, it belongs within this discussion because it also concerns the choice between personal interests and the interests of others.
In my formula concerning personal interest, I attempt to show that people belonging to the first two categories always constitute the majority. Even altruists, in situations where their interests do not conflict with the interests of others, are guided by natural personal interests. And in real life, such non-conflict situations are actually very common.
Fourth Situation
This is a situation in which a person, while satisfying their ordinary personal needs and interests, does not come into conflict with the interests of anyone else. In such a case, it is impossible to speak either of egoism or altruism, even though the person is still acting from the standpoint of personal interest.
I have repeatedly observed philosophical debates in which actions of this kind were called “egoistic” merely because they were based on personal interests. These are indeed personal interests. However, the word “egoism” in common understanding almost always carries a negative connotation and is associated with immorality.
Incidentally, Wikipedia defines egoism as follows:
“Egoism (from the Latin ego — ‘I’) is a value orientation of the individual characterized by placing one’s own interests, needs, and benefit above all else while disregarding the interests of others. It is a model of behavior in which a person acts exclusively for their own benefit, often using other people as a means to achieve their goals.”
However, there is nothing immoral or unethical in the fourth situation described above.
For a long time, I have been trying to find a precise term that would adequately describe this case. Perhaps something like “harmless personal interest” or maybe “non-harmful self-interest.” If such an exact term existed and had a clear definition, it could help avoid confusion of terms in discussions like this
Now let us return once again to altruism. Here another confusion often arises, at least in my opinion. Some people argue that so-called altruists, while performing charitable acts, may in fact be acting in their own interests: creating an image of themselves as philanthropists, or even expecting a “reward in the afterlife.” On this basis, some propose classifying all altruistic actions as egoistic.
I believe, however, that there is a subtle but important distinction here. In the latter cases, such actions can indeed be classified as egoistic. But there are also situations in which a person, while doing good, has no self-serving purpose other than the good itself. In such cases, even if it is their own personal desire, they should not be considered egoists.
Of course, one may object: “How can we know their true motivation? Outwardly, it looks the same.” That is true. But this is a problem for external observers. The fact that we do not know a person’s motives does not mean those motives do not exist, nor does it prove that genuinely selfless altruism is impossible.
About the Graphic Model
For greater clarity, I represented the human traits described above in the form of the accompanying conditional graph.
The numerical proportions shown in it partially reflect my own view concerning a certain regularity in the motivation of human behavior throughout life, which I formulated as follows:
“Most people in most situations are guided by personal interests and personal benefit.”
I called this formula the Law of Personal Interest (LPI), a philosophical regularity of human existence, and I attempt to examine and support it in detail through many examples in my philosophical and publicistic essay published on Medium.
(The link is provided at the end of the article.)
In the graph, this majority is represented by the red and yellow zones. The transitions between colors represent those situations — and those people — whose motivations are mixed and who may behave differently depending on circumstances.
Naturally, the graph is largely conditional and does not claim statistical precision. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it reflects a general tendency.
About Objections
I am convinced that many people will dispute both the numerical proportions and the regularity itself. That is perfectly normal. However, I would prefer to see arguments rather than emotions.
One may, incidentally, propose their own version of such a graph together with corresponding arguments — in that case it would be interesting to compare them.
My own arguments will be presented in a separate topic that I plan to publish in the coming days. It concerns not only everyday life, but also various spheres of social existence. Later on, if there is interest, I may also demonstrate how the proposed law manifests itself in different areas of human activity.
About Morality and Reality
More than once, I have been told that if personal interest has priority, then how can this be reconciled with ethics and morality? Some even argue that, from a moral point of view, things should not work this way.
My response is approximately the following:
I myself would also prefer reality not to look this way. But there is objective reality, and there are subjective desires. There is reality itself, and there are our ideas about how we would like reality to be. These are different things.
I am trying to speak about objectivity. Others are speaking about ideals and about what humanity should undoubtedly strive toward.
For example, one of the consequences of this regularity is, in my opinion, the fact that personal interest itself drives the development of civilization. And if this is indeed true, then this factor cannot simply be ignored, even for the sake of the noblest moral intentions.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Link:
-– Philosophical and publicistic essay on Medium
“The Main Law of Human Existence — The Law of Personal Interest (LPI)”
